Am I wierd? Maybe you're wierd?

[Jones_Crimson]

Well, of course the simple answer is yes that I, as a whole, am quite weird, disturbed, and unique in a few ways. I make a living off of it. I'm a 3rd rate writer who does the kind of psychological writing, correcting twice, and rewriting that most find overly dramatic and hard to follow.

However, there is one thing I've recently noticed myself doing that sets off alarm bells in my head, and I'm interested in what you, young and probably delinquent generation, think about it. Getting a "fresh perspective" on the subject.

I can't write, not easily at least, without watching some sort of mystery or having a really good puzzle laid out before me. Something about seeing someone with a puzzled look, no: feigning a puzzled look; acting out what it is to be puzzled, triggers a part of my brain that elaborates with ease. I'm very naturally justice oriented, so lying to my face makes me very focused and very angry about the situation. Perhaps the fact that they're not trying to hide anything does not set off the angered reaction but does trigger my natural focus.

What sort of expression sets you off, and how?

Rest assured I will read them as if you were my peers, and maybe even thoroughly enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter of one’s self.

[Jones_Crimson]

Agni님이 먼저 게시:

Mr. Awesful님이 먼저 게시:

You're illiterate. All of you are imbeciles who only read one line and feel like you're the new Socrates.

Would you be trying to imply that the title of the thread somehow has nothing to do with the content of the post and is infact redundant ?

And was the irony deliberate ?

You catch on fast, but you've still only read 3 lines, now. Either go away or make an effort to be a part of the conversation. The title was basically the introduction to the sentiment, not the overall summary.

[Jones_Crimson]

rubik748님이 먼저 게시:

Mr. Awesful님이 먼저 게시:

All of you are imbeciles who only read one line and feel like you're the new Socrates.

How does one "feel"? How does one "think"? How does one "know" someone that they never saw or met?

It's called history. I'm sorry you never had a proper education.

[C4Warr10r]

I'm most pleased by all of the replies here, including the ones to my comment. I don't often get the benefit of intelligent philosophical discussions.

Still, I maintain that I am right about all this. Even the brain is still controlled by genes after a fashion because it was built by them. You don't have to tell a person how to be sad or angry or happy, they just have those emotions built-in. It's biological programming. And yes, I am aware that I'm and idiot and this has all been posited before.

Be that as it may, humans live to fulfill a biological purpose, namely the reproduction of genes. Everything we do stems from that, including our need to interact. If we don't interact, the body begins to shut itself down, and we suffer the same fate as Jane Goodall's apes. It's not really a choice.

These lovely minds of ours are not just here for decoration, nor are they particularly well-equipped for rational thought. Primarily, they are weapons in the endless war between genes. The human condition is an eternal struggle because we are actually evolved to combat each other. We're our only natural enemies, and we always will be. Our minds are so clever because we practice to decieve each other.

I'm quite serious about this. The lengths to which the gene goes to decieve are astonishing. For instance, when women complain about fat going straight to their hips, they are right. It actually does go there. Some semblance of an explanation is offered in that women store fat for childbirth, this is true, but why the particular locations it accumlates in? For the simple purpose of making them appear more capable of bearing children than they actually are. We are also the only mammalian species with females that conceal ovulation.

All species are defined by the endless war of genes, but humans are the best at it. Genetic diversity may be the cause, but the end result is that everyone is weird. Brains not made to comprehend themselves, but quite ready to judge others, a simple machine set atop another when it comes down to it.

Are you tracking or have I lost anyone? It's pretty tough to put all of this into a post anyone will actually read. It really requires a book.

[Fork_Q2]

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

Still, I maintain that I am right about all this. Even the brain is still controlled by genes after a fashion because it was built by them. You don't have to tell a person how to be sad or angry or happy, they just have those emotions built-in. It's biological programming. And yes, I am aware that I'm and idiot and this has all been posited before.

Identical twins are almost always similar in personality, never the same. Our personalities are not totally determined by our genetics.

In any case, everyone alive as only a small subset of the sum of potential genetic mutations in humans, we're diverse, not "weird" as you put it in that post.

[76561198117027862]

Mr. Awesful님이 먼저 게시:

Agni님이 먼저 게시:

Would you be trying to imply that the title of the thread somehow has nothing to do with the content of the post and is infact redundant ?

And was the irony deliberate ?

You catch on fast, but you've still only read 3 lines, now. Either go away or make an effort to be a part of the conversation. The title was basically the introduction to the sentiment, not the overall summary.

Your mistake one among many, to put it simply and eloquently is approaching this with the preconception that we are bound to act within the limits of your rules. As you can clearly see, that remains not the case.

[Jones_Crimson]

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

I'm most pleased by all of the replies here, including the ones to my comment. I don't often get the benefit of intelligent philosophical discussions.

TLDNR

[Jones_Crimson]

Agni님이 먼저 게시:

Mr. Awesful님이 먼저 게시:

You catch on fast, but you've still only read 3 lines, now. Either go away or make an effort to be a part of the conversation. The title was basically the introduction to the sentiment, not the overall summary.

Your mistake one among many, to put it simply and eloquently is approaching this with the preconception that we are bound to act within the limits of your rules. As you can clearly see, that remains not the case.

Bought yourself a thesaurus? Good for you. By effort, I meant reading the post and looking for a good example, but instead you're just a tryhard on the defensive.

Middle school must be reall rough for you right now.

[76561198117027862]

Mr. Awesful님이 먼저 게시:

Agni님이 먼저 게시:

Your mistake one among many, to put it simply and eloquently is approaching this with the preconception that we are bound to act within the limits of your rules. As you can clearly see, that remains not the case.

Bought yourself a thesaurus? Good for you. By effort, I meant reading the post and looking for a good example, but instead you're just a tryhard on the defensive.

Middle school must be reall rough for you right now.

I have time to play and you seem to be willing to be the entertainment. So, sate my curiosity regarding your journey and the path you took to reach at those interesting conclusions or perhaps I should say assumptions.

[C4Warr10r]

Fork_Q2님이 먼저 게시:

Identical twins are almost always similar in personality, never the same. Our personalities are not totally determined by our genetics.

In any case, everyone alive as only a small subset of the sum of potential genetic mutations in humans, we're diverse, not "weird" as you put it in that post.

I would counter that the human desire for individualism is a product of those genetics.

[Fork_Q2]

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

Fork_Q2님이 먼저 게시:

Identical twins are almost always similar in personality, never the same. Our personalities are not totally determined by our genetics.

In any case, everyone alive as only a small subset of the sum of potential genetic mutations in humans, we're diverse, not "weird" as you put it in that post.

I would counter that the human desire for individualism is a product of those genetics.

Unless there is a gene that makes people more "individual", I would counter that and say that's an arbiturary just-so story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

[C4Warr10r]

Fork_Q2님이 먼저 게시:

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

I would counter that the human desire for individualism is a product of those genetics.

Unless there is a gene that makes people more "individual", I would counter that and say that's an arbiturary just-so story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Wikipedia? No. If we're going to have a serious discussion, let's turn to Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins. Genes are individual by definition, my friend. Even when they are the same, they live to express individuality. WIthout that, what's to attract a partner?

Even this discussion is evidence of that. Why even bother trying to outwit one another? It's not going to matter, regardless of the outcome, but we do it anyway because it is enjoyable and we want to learn. If that's not biological programming at work I don't know what is.

[Jones_Crimson]

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

Fork_Q2님이 먼저 게시:

Unless there is a gene that makes people more "individual", I would counter that and say that's an arbiturary just-so story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Wikipedia? No. If we're going to have a serious discussion, let's turn to Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins. Genes are individual by definition, my friend. Even when they are the same, they live to express individuality. WIthout that, what's to attract a partner?

Even this discussion is evidence of that. Why even bother trying to outwit one another? It's not going to matter, regardless of the outcome, but we do it anyway because it is enjoyable and we want to learn. If that's not biological programming at work I don't know what is.

You seem to be discussing genes from a conceptual standpoint as if you wanted to discuss the meaning of the word rather than the reality of the object. This mistake on your part shows that you doubt your own thesis just as much as the others, yet you defend it purely because it is your own.

Show some humility and stop discussing this here. Everyone knows it's pointless. Maybe you can take a class on it in college.

[Fork_Q2]

C4Warr10r님이 먼저 게시:

Fork_Q2님이 먼저 게시:

Unless there is a gene that makes people more "individual", I would counter that and say that's an arbiturary just-so story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Wikipedia? No. If we're going to have a serious discussion, let's turn to Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins.

OK, how about you dispute that you didn't just pull a just-so explanation? Was there anything specific in that article you disagreed with?

I see you're doing it yet again, to every human activity, including debating over the internet, is apparently genetic (so I take it the internet has been around for the last 2 million years then?). Not even considering that it just might be an lot more complicated than you think. If there ever was a better example of an ad hoc or Just-So claim, I have yet to encounter it.

Please point to me the gene(s) that make people "try to outwit one another"; it's not magic, you can't just make bold claims and say "uhuh, it's all genetics" as some sort of explanation. I get the feeling that you've just read The Selfish Gene and did really understand it, to be honest.

[76561198117027862]

As it seems that my toy broke and I am now left without one, I shall move onto the little offshoot.

Our genes make us human, they form the base or the foundation for the species. But our personalities that makes us unique aren't genetical even though their roots are. Our environment and experiences shape our lives and sculpts the statue.

[Fork_Q2]

Agni님이 먼저 게시:

As it seems that my toy broke and I am now left without one, I shall move onto the little offshoot.

Our genes make us human, they form the base or the foundation for the species. But our personalities that makes us unique aren't genetical eve though their roots are. Our environment and experiences shape our lives and sculpts the statue.

Yeah, sounds about right. Don't get me wrong, genetics does seem to determine an lot about us (seem to, because we don't really know how in most cases), but from what we understand from twin-experiments, just not everything about us.